'Who needs directors? They are so often misinterpreting the way opera should be - carelessly, willfully, ripping a composer’s work out of the period in which he set it, just to egotistically, even narcissistically, put his or her perverse stamp on a treasured work of art.'
Extreme views perhaps, but of all the artistic issues that confront us, the subject of 'Director's Opera', or more particularly the issue of setting productions out of the time in which the composer or librettist set them, is by far the most persistently contentious. Perhaps it's a pity that an opera, or a play, cannot be like a painting or a good book. ('Why can’t a woman be more like a man?') We don't need anyone to do our interpreting for us when we look at a picture, or read War and Peace. Tolstoy knew what he wanted; and we know what we want when we read him; it’s all so simple really. And if we do want another person’s interpretation of War and Peace, we take our argument 'outside' – we put the book down and argue with our friends in our local reading group. We argue with them, that is, not with the book! The book remains itself, complete, untouched and undiminished by the insensibility of a 'mistaken' reader. Not like being held captive by someone else in the opera theatre, who, after all, is neither the composer, the librettist or us - who thinks he knows what's best, who tries to tell us how we should 'see' a work of art. With opera we take our arguments 'inside', into the heated arena of the theatre itself, because directing is, by its nature, argumentative, trying to persuade us of how we should experience a work.
I exaggerate of course, but the fear of a director's power over that which they have learned to hold dear is ever-present among many opera lovers.
Directors are unsettling precisely because we need them to realize an opera – a singular act of interpretation - but they start the conversation without us; and by the time we join they have hijacked our response.
As for the outcry about updated productions? Experience tells me that this is something of fall-back position when someone simply does not 'like' a production. For example, I have had no letters of complaint about Elijah Moshinsky's productions of Rigoletto or La traviata, both of which are set well outside their 'intended' periods. I certainly can't recall anything but approbation for Moffatt Oxenbould's production of Madama Butterfly, which is so subtly influenced by Japanese custom but a far cry from the 'realistic' interpretations of most Butterflys that we have seen. Baz Luhrmann's production of La boheme, set in the 1950s, or his radical shifting of Britten's A Midsummer Night’'s Dream to colonial India, live as vividly in the collective memory of our Company as they did when they inspired audiences in the early 90s.
All of which makes me think that the real issue is not about whether a Director has the temerity to update or dislodge a work from its intended setting. It's much more about the value of their interpretation once the transgression has been committed. If, as the years and centuries move on, we stuck slavishly to a set period for each master work of the repertoire, then the essential conversation we have with these great works would stultify beyond rescue. But if a Director chooses to set an opera or play out of its imagined milieu, he or she better have a very good reason for doing so – because the nuances of an imagined setting are so often what give depth to an otherwise banal perception.
I exaggerate of course, but the fear of a director's power over that which they have learned to hold dear is ever-present among many opera lovers.
Directors are unsettling precisely because we need them to realize an opera – a singular act of interpretation - but they start the conversation without us; and by the time we join they have hijacked our response.
As for the outcry about updated productions? Experience tells me that this is something of fall-back position when someone simply does not 'like' a production. For example, I have had no letters of complaint about Elijah Moshinsky's productions of Rigoletto or La traviata, both of which are set well outside their 'intended' periods. I certainly can't recall anything but approbation for Moffatt Oxenbould's production of Madama Butterfly, which is so subtly influenced by Japanese custom but a far cry from the 'realistic' interpretations of most Butterflys that we have seen. Baz Luhrmann's production of La boheme, set in the 1950s, or his radical shifting of Britten's A Midsummer Night’'s Dream to colonial India, live as vividly in the collective memory of our Company as they did when they inspired audiences in the early 90s.
All of which makes me think that the real issue is not about whether a Director has the temerity to update or dislodge a work from its intended setting. It's much more about the value of their interpretation once the transgression has been committed. If, as the years and centuries move on, we stuck slavishly to a set period for each master work of the repertoire, then the essential conversation we have with these great works would stultify beyond rescue. But if a Director chooses to set an opera or play out of its imagined milieu, he or she better have a very good reason for doing so – because the nuances of an imagined setting are so often what give depth to an otherwise banal perception.
No, I really believe it's not about updating or not updating; rather it's about productions that work and others that don't. When we don't like a production that has been 'updated', it’s usually something else we are objecting to.







A great post Mr Collette.
ReplyDeleteAs a relatively new lover of opera the things I object to in productions are when:
1) the visuals conflict with the libretto or hinder it's comprehension; or
2) the visuals are over the top and distract from the music and singing.
A recently well balanced production for me was
OA & WNO Peter Grimes. It captured the literal sense of the work (place, time, atmosphere and unfolding events). It's visual simplicity intensified the emotive work.
As a recent example of staging distracting (at times) is Graeme Murphy's production of Aida. While it had plenty of things I enjoyed (I saw it twice) the excessive use of projection (especially when out of sync with the dancing) and the infernal whooshing/whirring belt noise across the front of the stage distracted immensely from the work at times.
Finally, there is the Lehnhoff production of Wagner's Lohengrin (seen on Blu-Ray recorded at the Festspielhaus, Baden-Baden in 2006 (Cat no. OABD7026D)). I objected to the way it obscured core elements of the story. There was never a swan (even implied) seen on stage. No chains. No dove. Simplicity is one thing but not at the expense of clarity.
I personally have no problems with updating operas to the present time or moving the location or time period, but, and this is a big but, it has to be done with fidelity to the libretto, regard for the music must be paramount and any change...... of location or time period must reflect the mood of the piece... If there are contradictions in the production and the libretto, shouldn't the libretto be changed for that production?
ReplyDeleteSome of my favourite opera productions are those taken out of the composer's original instructions, ie. Armfield's Peter Grimes (OA), Luhrmann's Midsummer Night's Dream (OA) and La Boheme (OA), Moshinsky's Rigoletto (OA), Neidhardt's Il trovatore (OA) and Tannhauser (OA), MacVicar's Salome(ROH), Giulio Cesare (Glyndebourne) and Faust (ROH), Decker's La Traviata (Salzburg), Paterson's Manon (LA), Zimmerman's Lucia (Met), Ichikawa's Die Frau ohne Schatten (Munich) and Guth's Don Giovanni (Salzburg)... All these productions maintain the integrity of the operas, but are given added dimensions by the insight of the directors.
"Experience tells me that this is something of fall-back position when someone simply does not 'like' a production."
ReplyDeleteWell said Mr Collette. As soon as someone complaining about a particular production uses the word 'traditional', you know the argument is going to be tainted with misinformation. Some argue that taking a piece of theatre out of it's contexts ruins it's meaning, but I find these people are usually attached to period costumes, and have little imagination. If you need to be spoon fed then maybe television is for you!
I confess to being somewhat conservative when it comes to my taste for the presentation of opera. None the less I find most "updates" reasonably enjoyable. I enjoyed Rigoletto last October, for example, particularly the men's chorus rendition of "Duca. Duca". (The duke in jungle greens in Act 3 threw me a bit - but OK.)
ReplyDeleteThat said, I hated what was done to Tosca last February. This most beautiful music, the wonderful sets and the story of tragic love was "updated" to the ghastly, grey mess of a police state. Even the beauty of Puccini's music could not compete with overall dreary presentation.